__z

Um... When I was suffering very bad anxiety I was unable to keep food down due to the anxiety and it certainly didn't feel anything like hunger.

I couldn't imagine any small company who didn't have life insurance on its owners - I thought that was like one of the first things you did. Guess it gets overlooked.

It's not the phosphoric acid, its the carbonation. Plain old carbonated water is acidic as well which can erode the teeth. That being said your saliva can repair the teeth. The current wisdom is don't drink solely acidic drinks and wait between acidic food/drink and teeth brushing.

RGB specifically addressed why the supreme court wasn't previously hearing marriage cases at that time - they don't generally hear cases when the circuit courts are in agreement. Once the circuit split then they addressed the issue, but only then. In fact the dissent in DeBoer v. Snyder (which is one of the four cases that was combined for the Supreme Court) said "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."

It is also against the UCMJ.

It's a practical matter.

"Getting married" is very easy and requires almost no expense and only a little bit of time. You don't need to plan at all for a civil marriage, just sign some paperwork. Drafting all the documents you'll need (will, medical directive, etc.) without a marriage takes lots of time and money (lawyer fees). Writing marriage into laws is a way to save families time and money and make everything simple for them.

Photographers, DJs, bakers, florists are not religious organizations, they are for profit businesses. That's the big difference. They are business that are open to the public. The church has religious requirements for some of their ceremonies (such as first communion).

WHICH states are considering dropping the formal recognition of marriage entirely? That sounds extremely implausible.

>Inheritance should be simple enough with normal contracts, regardless of marriage

No. United State v Windsor (the DOMA case) proved that. Spouses have estate tax exemptions. Windsor sued the IRS for $363,053 in estate taxes that she paid to them because the IRS didn't recognize her and her wife as legally married for tax purposes even thought New York did.

Civil marriage is a form of a "normal contract."

All the gay parents out there (including April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse two of the plaintiffs in this case) beg to differ.

Having a child is always a genetic lottery. At what point does some somewhat advanced probability of some disease become "choosing to have compromised children"?

"Spouse" and "parent" are not synonyms. Fertility was never a requirement of civil marriage. Post-menopausal women were always allowed to marry, just one example.

It wasn't an application though. There was nothing that said "approve" or "deny" just that we were truthful. Its reasonable for the clerk to make sure that someone else wasn't trying to impersonate me to get married or we weren't children.

It wasn't the fact it was an "application" that was the problem - you could just say "previously some states refused to register same sex marriages" instead of "previously some states refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples" and it means the same thing.

The Lovings (of Loving v Virgina) were arrested for getting married in DC.

It's kinda a permission thing but not really. When I got married it was just like registering a birth. The city clerk took our information down (name, address, etc.) and had us sign the license under oath that it was accurate. Then the civil officiant just checked our IDs and signed off on the license that we agreed to be married and submitted it the the clerk. We then went back to the clerk to get a copy. The city clerk wouldn't have gave us our license if we showed up without ID or if we were like 12 or something but there really wasn't an "approval" process.

>As an aside, my girlfriend just pointed out to me that it is hard to justify laws against incest (two adult relatives). Maybe we shouldn't have such laws.

I don't think we should have them. We only have them because its "eeeewwwww." Social taboo. Cousin marriage is legal in most of the east coast, including in my state and cousin marriage wasn't taboo historically.

In non-cousin marriage states it would be hard to enforce such a ban anyways. Do you have to prove you aren't related when you get your license? Who is going to find out? Who is going to care? Is the IRS going to challenge you? Is your employer going to find out your spouse is actually your cousin, know that is illegal in the state you got married in, and then deny your spouse benefits because your marriage wasn't technically legal? Probably not.

"Genetic problems" is compelling in some ways (but probably overblown) but you can have sex without marriage and marriage without sex and have sex without children (especially in the case of same-sex sex, post menopause sex, sex with someone who had their gonads removed, sex with inter-sexed persons... I can go on...)

I would also say it is your choice to have children with genetic problems - I mean we don't actually outlaw it. If two people were carriers of a terrible disease we don't punish the parents for knowingly taking that risk. We don't punish parents who have children much later in life (children born to parents of advanced age have a higher chance of a few diseases such as Down's Syndrome.)

The reason we have these laws is nobody has challenged them in court yet and is not likely to because not to many people want to marry their sister enough to file a federal lawsuit and I'm not aware of too many people who were arrested for incest (regardless if they were practicing it or not).

Legislatures can pass any laws they want. It can only be challenged by judicial review after said law is passed.

Two 12 year old girls can get married in Massachusetts as long as their parents approve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_...

>Let the state make rules around civil partnerships, and let religions deal with marriage

That's exactly how it works now. One is called civil marriage and one is called religious marriage. The church sets their own rules and the government sets theirs. You can be in one, the other, or both at the same time.

Civil marriage is a legal contract, religious marriage is decided by the church and it is whatever the church says it is. The government lets clergy also officiate civil marriage but it doesn't have to. It does because it makes sense. You wouldn't have to need a civil official and a religious official at your wedding. You wouldn't have to go through two ceremonies, one at the church and one at city hall.

Don't put too much thought in the fact that both contain the word "marriage" in them.

Goodrich vs. Dept of Health (MASS.) (emphasis mine):

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society.... The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.... the arguments made... failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

Strange, i don't get a warning, but the certificate has only been valid since yesterday.

I find it funny you reply to this and not my comment above... what does reinventing hyperlinks get you other than screwing up user experience????

Because Tumblr does it too???

What is the positive???

:(

Yep. Too much information in the absence of symptoms can actually a bad thing.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-scr...

"When pharmacies in the UK started offering glucose and cholesterol tests, the number of visits to doctors increased, but only 10% of people with positive tests needed treatment"

What kind of "difficult-to-work-with" questions do you ask? I'd like to filter out these people but I'm not sure what sorts of questions to ask to suss that out.

I wouldn't overlook this candidate but I also don't live in the Valley.

Some really hip stuff actually had origins in the defense industry like these little things we call The Internet and GPS.

The fansubbing community way back in the day (which is what this article is talking about) was never about convenience, it was about being able to watch anime that wasn't otherwise available. It was the only way. It was actually quite inconvenient. We are talking about the day of trading grainy 3rd-5th generation VHS tapes through snail-mail. Before P2P downloading. Before widespread access to high-speed internet - that's what we are talking about here.

Also - Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!

Overlocalization (and censorship) happened much more in the much earlier days of English anime (like the time when Pokemon came out). There isn't a real lot of that now because the fanbase wants true to the original translations. I have been out of the anime loop for a while now but that is my understanding. The NA release of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind comes to mind - it was released as Warriors of the Wind and was a total bastardization of the story. Miyazaki was incredibly dissatisfied with it so he adopted a "no cuts" policy for any future translations of his work. Apparently (so the rumor goes) when the English release of Princess Mononoke was being worked on they requested permission to change it in some way. The response from Studio Ghibli was a package containing a katana with the message "No cuts".

You have zero idea what you are talking about.

I support free speech, but that doesn't mean I am going to allow the KKK to do their demonstrations on my front lawn because "free speech." Disallowing that is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." Not even in the slightest.

Its a two way street - they are free to do their cross burning elsewhere and I'm also free to put signs on my lawn that support racial harmony.

Walmart (or whoever) is free to decide they don't want to sell the Confederate flag. The Daughters of the Confederacy (or whoever) are free to decide they want to sell the Confederate flag. Neither is stamping out free speech. BOTH are practicing free speech.

Free speech (as a value) doesn't mean "I need to facilitate everyone else all the time, always and so does everyone else." Free speech (as a value) means "you let me say what I want and I let you say what you want." The KKK can do their own thing and American Atheists can do theirs.

I can choose to hold an atheist convention and disallow priests to speak. Priests can choose to hold Mass and not allow atheist to speech. Its each party's choice.

If some types of items are unpopular with the public (or unpopular with the people who choose what to sell) it is a business decision to not sell them in order to appeal to their chosen demographic. It is not "stamp[ing] out free speech." There are niche markets everywhere for items that don't appeal to the general public. Most companies you are hearing about (Walmart, Sears, Apple) are trying to appeal to the masses.

Being forced to support everything is the exact opposite of free speech.

Let's also distinguish "the law" from "the Constitution." They are different.

CBS News and Huffington posts aren't mainstream? The NCAA isn't mainstream? Georgia's legislative branch isn't mainstream?

Where does it say Nazi merchandise is allowed on Amazon?

>EBay specifically bans their sale while Amazon bans the sale of "products that promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views."

Seems to me they both [generally] ban Nazi merchandise but have problems enforcing the ban.

Anyways, its irrelevant. Amazon can sell what it wants. That's a business choice they make. I don't care what they choose to sell, that is their choice.